do I understand the definition of a woman?

[Markk]

Hey Markk I've got another question!

At what stage of fetal development do sex organs differentiate?

This is not twenty questions, if you want to join the conversation make a point, give your opinions, site some links that support your opinion.

But to answer your question the baby’s sex is determined at conception and if everything goes right the organs develop between 8-12 weeks +- from what I have read. What does this have to do with AIS? What is your point?

Thanks

[Markk]

A terrible disease and having two healthy children a unimaginable reality, and as a Christian something I can not understand or comprehend, or pretend too. But the reality is that they area biological male with undeveloped genitals. That is just a fact Honor. And trying take it something it is not is just dishonest too me.

Can you find a medical journal or legitimate publication that shares your emotive response and damning language? I mean, you really seem to be invested in this false binary to the point you want anything that undermines it to crawl off and hide away until the end of their miserable, non-binary lives.

Sounds like conservative think in action, though. Conform or die. But LIBERALS HATE FREEDOM AND WANT THE HUMAN RACE TO GO EXTINCT BECAUSE THEY DON"T KNOW WHAT A WOMAN IS ANYMORE!!!!

I have to wonder how many calories maintaining this level of ignorance burns. It seems like a lot of work.

Markk, they're girls that mature into women. They may be biologically male, but they are absolutely girls and women. You don't like the implications of that, but that's you clinging to a false view of the world.

No, they are biology’s males that identify as girls and women. Why do you have a problem with the science. At least you are admitting they are biologically male…that is a small milestone.

Are they biological males, with underdeveloped genitals because of this disease or not? Why is this damning language? I have linked you to reliable sites that states exactly this, like the Cleveland Clinic.

[Marcus]

An interesting (albeit pretty gross) assumption related to this discussion was stated in another forum…

[people today are]…nihilating victorian versions of gender. That is the whole point. We are dehumanizing this construct and calling it a relic of institutionalized Christianity and traditions. If in the process, we dehumanize transgender people or dehumanize women…

This is fascinating. Cultellus assumes that moving past a Victorian version of gender “dehumanizes” current people. It sounds more like he believes that the old stereotypes worked for him, and that he doesn’t want that to change.

[Morley]

Can you find a medical journal or legitimate publication that shares your emotive response and damning language? I mean, you really seem to be invested in this false binary to the point you want anything that undermines it to crawl off and hide away until the end of their miserable, non-binary lives.

Sounds like conservative think in action, though. Conform or die. But LIBERALS HATE FREEDOM AND WANT THE HUMAN RACE TO GO EXTINCT BECAUSE THEY DON"T KNOW WHAT A WOMAN IS ANYMORE!!!!

I have to wonder how many calories maintaining this level of ignorance burns. It seems like a lot of work.

Markk, they're girls that mature into women. They may be biologically male, but they are absolutely girls and women. You don't like the implications of that, but that's you clinging to a false view of the world.

No, they are biology’s males that identify as girls and women. Why do you have a problem with the science. At least you are admitting they are biologically male…that is a small milestone.

Are they biological males, with underdeveloped genitals because of this disease or not? Why is this damning language? I have linked you to reliable sites that states exactly this, like the Cleveland Clinic.

Markk, what determines whether a person is male or female? Your answer seems to be that one small set of an individual's chromosomes are more significant that what God-given genitalia the individual manifests.

Should (what you call) a biological male who has breasts and labia get surgically modified to appear more like a man? Or should this person use the urinal in the men's room just the way that they are?

[Markk]

No, they are biology’s males that identify as girls and women. Why do you have a problem with the science. At least you are admitting they are biologically male…that is a small milestone.

Are they biological males, with underdeveloped genitals because of this disease or not? Why is this damning language? I have linked you to reliable sites that states exactly this, like the Cleveland Clinic.

Markk, what determines whether a person is male or female? Your answer seems to be that one small set of an individual's chromosomes are more significant that what God-given genitalia the individual manifests.

Should (what you call) a biological male who has breasts and labia get surgically modified to appear more like a man? Or should this person use the urinal in the men's room just the way that they are?

Morley, anyone can do what they want, and we can call them what they want to be called…for the most part I have no issue at all with that…but that does not mean we can not understand and define what a biological woman or man is and adult male and female human being.

As far as restroom usage there are bunch of sick people in this world that will take advantage of someone’s medical issue in order to get their jolly’s off, and that’s sad, so in my opinion I have to be carful of that in public restrooms in regards to my wife, daughter and grandchildren. Looking for things that are rare to form a blanket narrative for everyone, is not a good way to argue this, at least in my opinion. It is kind of like the defense for abortion by many is “what about those that are conceived because of rape or incest? Of the 69 million babies aborted how many fall into that category? We don’t have a fair answer for everything and we have to adapt and make tough decisions sometimes, such is life.

[Markk]

An interesting (albeit pretty gross) assumption related to this discussion was stated in another forum…

[people today are]…nihilating victorian versions of gender. That is the whole point. We are dehumanizing this construct and calling it a relic of institutionalized Christianity and traditions. If in the process, we dehumanize transgender people or dehumanize women…

This is fascinating. Cultellus assumes that moving past a Victorian version of gender “dehumanizes” current people. It sounds more like he believes that the old stereotypes worked for him, and that he doesn’t want that to change.

Are you a biological male…?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

If ^ this is a biological reality, why couldn’t gradations of such a thing be a reality? And if gradations of such a thing are a reality, then what kind of construct would we use to describe someone who isn’t 100% biological female/male, because even though their outward appearance is that of a female/male, any number of inward things, from plumbing to neural wiring, is that of a the sex opposite of their outward appearance.

A man (because society has defined what a male looks and feels like) on the outside, but a woman (because society has defined what a female looks and feels like) on the inside? What do we call these people who are so constructed after the manner shown and described above, or of its endless varieties?

They’re generally defined as transgender, because they don’t fit the biological ‘norm’ and are transitional in a literal sense.

So. In effect, is a woman a woman if they’re 38% genetically and hormonally a male? Are they less of a woman who is 11% male, or 1%? If a 60% female can be a woman, then can a 49.5% female be a woman?

In other words, can a person who presents as a woman, but because genetically and hormonally they’re actually 58% male, still be considered a female through dress and mannerisms? I’d say yes. This is how and why gender is considered a construct, along with social evolution that demanded roles for males and females, and forced the ‘in-betweener’ to choose one or the other.

How is this so difficult to either understand or to accept that braying loudly and consistently is the only recourse left to the doggedly dunning-krugers?

- Doc

[Marcus]

An interesting (albeit pretty gross) assumption related to this discussion was stated in another forum…

[people today are]…nihilating victorian versions of gender. That is the whole point. We are dehumanizing this construct and calling it a relic of institutionalized Christianity and traditions. If in the process, we dehumanize transgender people or dehumanize women……

This is fascinating. Cultellus assumes that moving past a Victorian version of gender “dehumanizes” current people. It sounds more like he believes that the old stereotypes worked for him, and that he doesn’t want that to change.

Are you a biological male…?

Why do you ask... ?

[Markk]

Are you a biological male…?

Why do you ask... ?

LOL…

[dantana]

If ^ this is a biological reality, why couldn’t gradations of such a thing be a reality? And if gradations of such a thing are a reality, then what kind of construct would we use to describe someone who isn’t 100% biological female/male, because even though their outward appearance is that of a female/male, any number of inward things, from plumbing to neural wiring, is that of a the sex opposite of their outward appearance.

A man (because society has defined what a male looks and feels like) on the outside, but a woman (because society has defined what a female looks and feels like) on the inside? What do we call these people who are so constructed after the manner shown and described above, or of its endless varieties?

They’re generally defined as transgender, because they don’t fit the biological ‘norm’ and are transitional in a literal sense.

So. In effect, is a woman a woman if they’re 38% genetically and hormonally a male? Are they less of a woman who is 11% male, or 1%? If a 60% female can be a woman, then can a 49.5% female be a woman?

In other words, can a person who presents as a woman, but because genetically and hormonally they’re actually 58% male, still be considered a female through dress and mannerisms? I’d say yes. This is how and why gender is considered a construct, along with social evolution that demanded roles for males and females, and forced the ‘in-betweener’ to choose one or the other.

How is this so difficult to either understand or to accept that braying loudly and consistently is the only recourse left to the doggedly dunning-krugers?

- Doc

You know, sometimes I scratch my head a bit when trying to imagine the finer tunings of evolution, survival of the fittest, etc. In a lot of species, and especially homo sapiens, the males are bigger, stronger, faster. Didn't women persons with vaginas creatures that ovulate have to outrun tiggers too?